Dutch language tag?

I've tagged Verbraeken's Wazigheid as "du" in the meantime, but that probably isn't an accurate tag? (Steltz)

I've changed it to "nl", and add that code to the lists. It's hard to believe it's not come up before! — P.davydov 15:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Graphic and indeterminate scores

Jujimufu and I were discussing this a few days ago, and decided that it would be worth it to try to come up with a couple new tags for these. What I was thinking is this: we already have a tag for electronic instruments, so we can leave that part of it alone. Then there should be two new tags: one for scores in which graphic elements take importance over 'normal' notation, and another for compositions with indeterminate elements. (You can find a fuller discussion here, but I thought it better to move it here.) Juji came up with five different classes of graphic scores, but I think that because of the possibility of multiple tags being used, there would be too much overlap. (Just to make things a bit easier, he also created a category to keep track of most of the compositions in question.) I support his idea because I feel that graphic notation represents a wholly different approach to composition, and we should therefore classify it differently from traditionally notated works. Opinions? KGilltalkemail 14:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, and I'm sure we can do something. As you know, the tagging system is based on the "type" (musical form) of the work, and its instrumentation, so the layout of the score isn't taken into consideration. But the category "Graphics Scores" that's been created by Jujimufu could be included in the category walker so that it appears in searches, while remaining independent from the tagging system. The open instrumentation aspect is something that the tagging system should take into account, and although there are tags for this available already, I'm open to suggestions as to how this might be improved to cope with certain situations — P.davydov 18:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I would almost have been willing to leave it at Juji's new category except that it only appears in the bottom of the CW in the 'unknown' section. This section contains any other category found that isn't in the tagging system, a composer, or a time period, so it wouldn't be too obvious that it was there (I remember Feldmahler mentioning a while back that if necessary it could be subject to removal anyway). I know that we base it on type, instrumentation, and language (if applicable); I think what I'm trying to argue is that writing a work using indeterminate techniques (and many times graphic notation) fundamentally alters the form of the work. I guess it depends. In Jujimufu's work 6-4, one can choose any recordings one wants, and the score is a bunch of rectangles of different colors with numbers written in. Because the work can be changed almost completely based on who picks the recordings, it is clearly of a different breed than works where the composer determines almost every aspect of the piece. Sorry, I'd like to finish my thoughts, but I need to leave right now - sorry! KGilltalkemail 22:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

To continue: the aspect 'work type'/form included in the tagging system might not only be limited to the traditional ideas of a work filling one specific bill or function, or being pigeonholed as one type (or multiple specific types, but it's still specific). Indeterminate composition leaves it open, and because of this, I feel that it should be distinguished from the catchall 'pieces', which just includes anything for which we don't have a specific tag. It could in fact be tagged as 'pieces ; indeterminate', or something like that. As for graphic scores, I may not have as strong an argument for this, except to say a little vaguely that it does represent a quite different technique. I also cite the fact that we tag 'jazz' for a lead sheet, another different method of writing. KGilltalkemail 00:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that explanation. How about if:

"Graphical scores" is used for the type of work in these circumstances

Our current "open" tag (for "Works with open instrumentation") was used for the instrumentation?

So the tags in these cases would be "graphical scores ; open"? — P.davydov 08:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the open instrumentation is the problem - I think we already have all the necessary tags for that. Jujimufu has now also said:

“

I think there should be a clear distinction between purely electronic compositions, and compositions which involve live acoustic elements and electronic manipulation of the sound.

”

I think he has a definite point here. This work, for example, is a purely electronic composition with graphical notation. This is quite different than something that just uses electronics to manipulate sound generated by normal instruments. (Sorry for kind of passing over this earlier.) 'Graphic(al) scores' sounds like a good tag, but maybe we should reserve the tag 'elec' for something like the Steiner where it's just completely electric. We already do it in that case (we could change it to 'pieces ; graphic ; elec', maybe), but there are others on the that fit less with what we have now. In fact, I'm not really even sure how I would tag one of the works that fits the second case... KGilltalkemail 22:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for joining in so late. I like the "open instrumentation" tag - this could be applied to a number of compositions, such as Riley's "In C". Davydov said that the tags currently focus around forms ("type" of work) and instrumentation, but I say that form is not independent from notation: although for the most part of our notated music we take notation for granted, there are pieces in which notation is the foreground, and I think this is important enough to be reflected in the tagging system. Or, perhaps, the tagging system could have an extra dimension: "type of work", "instrumentation", and "notation": the default for "instrumentation" could be "open instrumentation" (unless otherwise specified, this piece is for any instruments) and the default for "notation" would be "traditional notation" (as defined by Gardner Read's manual on music notation). So, we wouldn't have to worry about tagging a piece as "traditionally notated", but if we have a graphic score, or an indeterminate score, then the tag would reflect that. Furthermore, we could add tags such as "mensural", "leadsheet", or "tablature" within the "notation" aspect of the tagging system, which would reflect interesting notations that are not graphic, but are not traditional either.

(A small detail, but I think "graphical" refers to graph-like, whereas "graphic" refers to visual-arts-like, so I would avoid using "graphical notation" as a term, for clarity.)

Also, how about adding "prepared" in the instrumentation tags? This way, if someone was looking for works using prepared instruments, they could easily find them all in one page.

To sum up, I think we should have the following categories: graphic notation, indeterminate notation (and any other ones such as mensural notation, tablature notation, leadsheet notation etc), and for instrumentation we should add "open" (any instrumentation, or indeterminate instrumentation), "prepared" (for prepared instruments), "electronic" (purely electronic, with or without a score) and "live electronics" (live manipulation of acoustic elements; this would include a compositions where a tape is played alongside with a live performance), all of which are independent of the score (e.g. a composition may be electronic but very determinate, or may include live electronics and be a graphic score, or may be just electronic and have no score). • jujimufu(talk) 13:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for those detailed suggestions, which raise some interesting questions. My first thoughts are:

The current system allows people to use the category walker to search for scores using electronic instruments, and then to see a breakdown of the list according to the instrumentation of the scores. As you'll see here, we have only 14 works including electronic instruments, and only 2 that use them exclusively. As most of the works remaining to be tagged are vocal works, it's unlikely that these numbers will increase significantly in the near future.

On the idea of having new tags for the notation system of each work, going back and adding "standard" tags to the 15,000 works we've already done is not an option. I don't think you were suggesting this anyway, but the upshot is that we'd end up with a small proportion of scores (probably <2%) that could be classified as using non-standard notation, and the rest wouldn't be listed in any notation category. For that reason, I think your idea of manually placing this small number of works in a special category is the best approach.

As to whether the current tagging for "open" instrumentation could be improved, then I suspect the answer is yes. We have 147 works in that category, the vast majority from the baroque era, where composers like Lully were notoriously vague when it came to specifying instrumentation in their scores. 34 of these 147 works are classified as "Modern", and none of these employ electronic instruments (assuming they've all been tagged correctly).

So because there are so few works using (a) electronic instruments, or (b) non-standard notation, it's difficult to justify major changes to the tagging system in the way that you suggested. However, works by Lully seem to sit a little uncomfortably alongside those by Psimikakis-Chalkokondylis in the "open instrumentation" category, and maybe you have some thoughts on how this might be improved? — P.davydov 22:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Very interesting points, and I will agree with you that the vast majority of the compositions on IMSLP are traditionally notated and we shouldn't even think of re-tagging them with just a "traditional notation" tag: all I meant was that, if there is no "notation" tag, it should be implicit that they are traditionally notated. Would it be possible, for example, to create a category page in which all the pages that are not tagged "graphic" or "indeterminate" can appear? Also, how about a category of pieces which have no score? (what if an electronic piece has no score?)

I am aware that there is a very small percentage of non-traditionally notated scores. However, as Feldmahler always points out, we should think of IMSLP not as something that will be relevant tomorrow or next week, but as something that will be relevant in 100 years' time. In 2031, Cardew's scores will be in public domain; in 2037, Morton Feldman's works; and in 2042, all of John Cage's. These dates are not as far as they look, and imagine how many graphic and indeterminate scores will start entering IMSLP from then onwards. I further believe that these changes, applicable now only to a small amount of scores, will have a significant impact on other living composers in submitting their works to IMSLP: if a composer sees IMSLP as being a traditionally-notated-oriented website, they won't be really interested in submitting their scores here, especially if graphic scores and electronic pieces are not tagged, making it harder for other people to find their works. However, if we set up a neat way of categorising graphic, indeterminate and electronic works now that there's only few works to apply the tags to, it will not only make it easier for us to tag new works that fit in these categories, but also make it more likely that, knowing that graphic works can be categorised like that, composers will be more likely to submit this kind of compositions in the future. Imagine how many "sonic artists" there are who work solely with electronic media and have no idea about traditional notation - now with the "recordings" feature on IMSLP, they can also submit their compositions here. And imagine how fantastic would it be if other people took the liberty of creating scores for their electronic compositions, like Rainer Wehinger did with Ligeti's "Artikulation". Imagine how many more uses could be found for IMSLP that would bring more and more members of the music and sonic-arts societies around the globe, all by opening up to accept and integrate works that use graphic and indeterminate notation, and electronic music compositions (or live electronics).

The question you raise about "open instrumentation" with regards to having Lully and Riley's or my name in the same page is a good one which I don't think I can answer adequately. I can only suggest that we could have pre-common practice "open instrumentation" and post-common practice "open instrumentation", which would, of course, raise more problems (what about pieces written by classical composers in which one or two instruments are not specified, etc etc).We could, perhaps, use different terms such as "unknown instrumentation" and "open instrumentation" - however, this would imply that all of Lully's (and others') works did not have a specific instrumentation by accident, while all the contemporary pieces consciously make that choice, which is not (always) true.

I think we could just have a special category page for graphic scores - but that would make it difficult to navigate through the pieces other than by composer's name or by the work's name. What do you think would be the optimal solution for graphic and indeterminate scores, and for the "open instrumentation" issue? • jujimufu(talk) 13:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, my undestanding is that it isn't possible to automatically create categories for works that are missing a particular tag. So scores labelled as graphical or non-standard, etc., will necessarily be in a group by themselves, with no counterpart category for standad notation. This goes against the general principle of the tagging system, which is that every work should be placed in at least one category according to its attributes, and for this reason I think it's best for you to continue with manually categorizing the graphical scores. From the small sample we have so far, you may be able to devise sub-categories that one day might be used more widely. I'm not sure I'll be around by the time the scores of John Cage, et al, come into the public domain, but at least we have plenty of time to consider the problem! – P.davydov 20:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

national anthems

In trying to tag Hawai'i Pono'i by Berger, I came across an interesting problem. National anthems are generally old enough that we don't really know what the original instrumentation/accompaniment was. But in any case, especially if the song was specifically composed to be used as an anthem, the initial conception is one of accompaniment by anything possible -- piano in schools, bands at military functions, orchestras in more formal functions, etc, etc. In the case of Berger's anthem, he was the bandmaster to the King of Hawaii in the late 1800s, so I would conjecture military band was the original, but he set out to compose it as a national anthem, with words set by the King. Its genesis is therefore multi-functional. Is there even any point in putting an instrumentation down for these? (BTW, though no longer a national anthem, it is now the state song of Hawaii, so it still serves an almost equal function.)

Question 2 -- the words exist in both Hawaiian and English. Is there a tag for the Hawaiian language? (Steltz)

Unlike the other languages we've used so far, there isn't an ISO standard 2-letter code for the Hawaiian language, but there is a 3-letter code we can use: "haw"

In cases like this, where there is no original score to tag, we could omit the instrumental part of the tag, i.e. "national anthems ; en ; haw". The arrangements on that page would automatically receive their own tags, and a similar solution could be used in those other cases where the original scores are missing and the instrumentation unknown. We'd just have to make sure that if the original files are ever added, that the tags are updated (maybe easier said than done!) — P.davydov 21:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Unknown arrangements tag

Arthur Bird's Symphony op.8 shows an "unknown arrangement tag", though right next to it is "| For piano 4-hands (arr) | Pages with arrangements". There is only the one arrangement on that page, so I don't know what is causing a correct tag + an unknown one. I've tried a couple minor things, but (Davydov), can you figure out what's wrong? (Steltz)

Yes, it's the hyphen in "4-hands". If you change it to "4 hands" it should be fine — P.davydov 13:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Gounod, Serenade

I am unable to tag this -- Whoever uploaded it mentions that it was possibly co-composed with a Jaime Felipe José Bosch, and says it should possibly go under "various". Grove doesn't list it under Gounod's compositions, even as an arrangement, though Lemoine obviously felt it was Gounod's. I can't see Bosch's name (or anyone else's) on the music. The first problem as that, technically, "Serenade" is the subtitle. "Passacaille" is the title. That part I can change, but we have a Jacques Bosch in IMSLP and his Pasa Calle (Serenade for solo guitar) looks (apart from Gounod's added intro) to be pretty much the same, though I haven't done a bar-by-bar comparison. On the surface of it, it looks to me that Gounod arranged Bosch's Pasa Calle, which would put the Gounod version on the Bosch page. Suggestions as to what to do? (Steltz)

[Edit]: this also has an unknown arrangements tag

There is an entry for this work on Worldcat [1], which states "Original work by Jacques Bosch with violin ad libitum by Charles Gounod; arr. here for 2 pianos, 8 hands." Other versions confirm that this is the "Passacaille" by Jacques Bosch, originally for guitar, so that should be the main work page. Gounod's version with violin (which we don't yet have), and the solo piano version can be treated as arrangements of Bosch's original — P.davydov 21:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the files over to Bosch's page with citation of the WorldCat entry. Perhaps someone could just check that I've done it all correctly, and then the Serenade page can be removed from Gounod's page (it isn't very clear who did the 2-piano version, WorldCat only mentions his involvement in the guitar/violin arrangement. (Steltz)

Turk, Klavierschule

I tagged this two days ago. In the meantime, one more file has been added and the display has gone wonky. I've tried to fix it, but I obviously don't know enough about page construction and the uploader has said "ADMINS: Sorry I don't know how to arrange the page correctly." Can someone have a look? (Steltz)

Could the page have been deleted since you posted this? I can't find anything that resembles it — P.davydov 20:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

On checking if we already had a tag for the Portugese language, I found that we had, but it was incorrectly given as "cn" instead of "pt". Apologies for this error, which has now been corrected — P.davydov 16:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Gilchrist, Christ our Passover

I tagged this as an anthem, "anthems", which is what is in the table. It shows as an unknown tag, but surely we've had anthems before now? Is there something wrong here? (Steltz)

No problem. It really is the first anthem (as opposed to national anthems) to be tagged — P.davydov 19:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Blow, Ode on the Death of Purcell

Do we have a tag for countertenors? (Steltz)

We don't, on the basis that "alt" and "mez" parts could be sung by males with sufficient vocal range (as well as females), so it's the range that we're tagging, rather than the gender — P.davydov 18:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How does one decide whether a part is in the alto or mezzo range? (Steltz)

If in doubt, I'd say use "alt", as I'm told this is the median range of most countertenors — P.davydov 08:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So, do you think there should be a new tag? KGilltalkemail 13:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Would it perhaps be equivalent to the viola da gamba or viola d'amore, for which we already have tags? — P.davydov 21:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. A bit of digging (Wikipedia says it's also called a violotta) seems to reveal that the tenor viola has four strings and is tuned in fifths starting a fifth below the range of the normal viola (i.e. f-c-d-g). This work, however, seems to indicate a tuning of g-d-a-e (an octave below the violin). The viola da gamba normally has six strings, and d'amore has seven (fourteen if you count the sympathetic strings) - this is definitely not related. At this point, I favor the creation of a new tag, because (now that I actually did some research, I conclude that) this instrument isn't close enough to anything else to be covered by an existing tag. KGilltalkemail 22:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a persuasive argument, so let's use "tva" for the tenor viola — P.davydov 05:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Viol Consort

Wikipedia suggests that this was a type of viola da gamba, so maybe sn expert can advise us on whether they are the same? — P.davydov 05:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I've played in a Viol Consort - basically between 3-8 viols of different sizes (i.e. treble, alto, tenor, bass)-- Snailey (_@/)Talk to MeEmail me 14:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so you meant an ensemble, rather than the German-made instrument? Can you point me to scores where it occurs? — P.davydov 17:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Odhecaton is a good example (no words; it must be for viols!). Purcell fantasias, some pieces by lawes, byrd, bull, etc.A "consort" instrument is simply one designed more for playing in ensemble than as a soloist.-- Snailey (_@/)Talk to MeEmail me 19:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Pisador, Libro de musica de vihuela

This is a type of guitar from 15th and 16th century Spain. Should it be given its own name or tagged as a guitar? (Steltz)

I would say guitar, unless any pisadorists strongly take exception to that? — P.davydov 08:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

generic title for something with speaker

Would this be "pieces" or "songs"? I think probably pieces, but just checking. (Steltz)

Actually "melodramas" is the correct term in that case — P.davydov 08:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

treatises vs methods

I suppose at some point we have to start tackling books . . . . A treatise -- it might include exercises, in which case it could be tagged as a method, or it might be pure text in which that's probably not a good idea. By definition, a treatise is a discussion, but that doesn't preclude its use as a method. Suggestions? By the way, we don't have a "books" tag, so I think we have to start coming up with appropriate tags. (Steltz)

Of the large group we already have online, around half had been classified by their uploaders as "books" and the other half as ordinary music scores, even though most of them contain textural instructions interspersed by musical examples and/or exercises. This makes the old books/scores division fairly pointless, which is why we won't be having a tag just for "books" — it will depend on the contents.

Coming back to your specific question, would the best solution be to use "treatises" for discussions without teaching exercises, and "methods" for those with exercises? And are there any other tags you anticipate might be needed? — P.davydov 08:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that On playing the flute has sort-of excercises, but is also titled "essay" (versuch). We might want to think about "essay" anyways—someone might decide to upload some Tovey!-- Snailey (_@/)Talk to MeEmail me 14:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Scenes/Scena?

Is the standalone 'scena'/'szene'/'scene' - a big thing in the 19th century both vocal (Gernsheim's Agrippina, op.45 for solo, chorus and orchestra), instrumental (B.v.Bree's scene for horn and orchestra, Felix Draeseke's scene for violin and piano, I don't think Schumann's Scenes from Faust is exactly what I'm thinking of though) - these works were often (sometimes?) inspired by the "mad scenes" from operas, I think - one-movement works (generally with an introduction and main section) of considerable emotion and operatic character even when purely instrumental like the Bree and Draeseke - anyhow, do they neatly fit into some existing genre, or deserve a genre of their own? They are close to some others (sacred and secular cantatas depending on text, maybe, in the case of the Gernsheim.) Thanks! Eric 14:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The list of categories we use is based on one compiled by the Music Library Association, and there are some terms (like "scenes" or "partsongs") that they deliberately avoided because there were no generally-accepted definitions. If the composer doesn't provide any helpful subtitles (like "aria", "pastorale" or "cantata"), then we should use the catch-all term "pieces" for now. When the tagging is eventually finished, we can look at all the works left in "pieces" and decide whether they can be satisfactorily grouped into new categories — P.davydov 15:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Another question too :) - handling of bc/basso continuo

I understand, I think, the decision to convert "bc" to bassoon, cello, and continuo tags, but since the discovery that - in certain periods at least - basso continuo roles were taken up by perhaps dozens of instruments (even in one piece during one performance- well, maybe almost a dozen in that case :) - I'm going by vague memory here and am no one's idea of an expert alas, but should try to look this up as it does interest me... ), not just bassoon, harpsichord and cello, does this handling of the tag really "do"? :) I don't know what to suggest unfortunately - maybe less instead of more... Eric 14:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Continuo means up to and including: Lute, Harpsichord, Theorbo, Cello, Gamba, Violone, Bass, Bassoon, Organ, Piano, or even Clavichord according to C.P.E. Bach. It's a) undesirable to have all of those in a given instance and b) impractical to implicate all of them automatically.-- Snailey (_@/)Talk to MeEmail me 15:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The rule is that we should always use "bc" to cover groups of instruments playing continuo, and not attempt to break them down into individual parts. If you've seen cases where this hasn't happened then do let me know (especially if it's my fault!) — P.davydov 15:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Where I see an instrumentation that is listed "blah blah blah cello continuo" I download the piece to check it, because I find that a lot of peope see a cello part and don't realize it's a part of the continuo. If it truly is independent of a cembalo part, then I will tag it separately, but mostly these end up in the continuo. In these cases, I alter the instrumentation field to make this clearer, e.g. "continuo (cembalo + cello)". (Steltz)

That is a very helpful practice, and it's a pity that so much of the existing information in the instrumentation field is unreliable. I must confess to not having the patience to correct/fill in all of them as I've gone along — P.davydov 07:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

voice types in lieder and solo songs

Apologies if this has been asked - is there general agreement how "high voice"/"medium voice"/"low voice" compares and relates to the better known system of soprano/mezzo/alto/tenor/baritone/bass-baritone/bass/etc.? (It is true that the former generally comes with a range of what notes are required for the singer to sing...) Eric 20:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Sop/ten are high, mez/bar are medium, and alt/bass are low. There is no accepted convention of what ranges are “required”, since some composers will depart from the “rule” to stretch the vocalist, just as much as other lieder composers would cater for “high voice” or “low voice” with settings that would fit within a narrow compass. And within a single voice type such as “soprano” there are a multitude of vocal subtypes, which muddy the waters further.

For tagging purposes, "v" should be used unless it's specifically stated that the part is for a soprano, tenor, bass, etc., because of the vagueness of the term as Philip has indicated — P.davydov 22:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

operas

Thanks for all the help earlier. Suggestion or question - I think "vv ch cch orch" would be a very useful tag to add for some operas (and other choral works!) (e.g. Pfitzner Das Christelflein where some commentary on the web shows the existence of a childrens' chorus) - is there something better to use instead? :) Thanks again! Eric 17:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not always obvious when childrens' voices are used, yes it would be helpful to use "vv ch cch orch", or similarly appropriate tags in such cases. Thanks — P.davydov 19:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)